When manufacturing a food product, a cosmetic, and/or a hygiene product, numerous analyzes can be performed regularly in order to monitor the composition of the product and its state of hygiene (quality control, hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP), etc.). These analyses are generally implemented by means of automatic machines capable of giving very precise quantitative results on said composition or hygiene states (quantity of bacteria, quantity of each element, etc.).
However, it is also appropriate to perform organoleptic analyses during creation of a product or while it is being renovated, i.e. when similar competing products are on the market and it is necessary to offer a product having its own “character”, while nevertheless conserving the original qualities of the basic product.
These analyses are performed by panels of testers who are trained and selected for being representative of a population, for their ability to distinguish as objectively and as accurately as possible between different descriptors for the product (i.e. different aromas, different textures, intensities, etc.), and for giving responses that are accurate and objective.
In general, organoleptic analyses are performed under conditions which are strict in order to obtain responses that are free from any outside influence, for example:                it is known to perform wine tasting in glasses that are blue so that testers are not influenced by the color of the wine;        tasting rooms are neutral in color and soundproof so that testers are not subjected to any outside influence;        red lighting can be used to mask characteristic color;        tasting stations are spaced apart from one another so that testers do not influence one another by their behavior; and        the product samples are given in an order specific to each tester.        
The responses to such qualitative analyses are then processed statistically in application of various relationships selected depending on the type of analysis.
The interpretation and the pertinence of such results depend on the qualities of the responses of the testers.
In general, in order to facilitate statistical analysis, a list of descriptors is given to each tester who is required to select from said list when describing perceptions and giving them marks corresponding to their intensities.
However, studies undertaken by the Applicant have shown that in spite of recommendations, testers generally mark descriptors, e.g. for intensity, in the order in which they are read successively from the list supplied to them, and not in the order in which a descriptor appears and/or becomes pertinent during tasting.
That method of proceeding presents major drawbacks:                Certain descriptors are poorly marked or not marked at all. For example, for a cake, the list of descriptors is as follows: chocolate, sweet, bitter, crunchy. Testers give their perceptions relative to those descriptors in the order they appear in the list. However, if a tester initially perceives bitterness followed by the taste of chocolate and then begins by marking the descriptor chocolate, because it is at the top of the list, the tester will give marks to the descriptor bitterness after a delay that is sufficient to falsify the result compared with that tester's real perception. The magnitude of this problem increases with increasing length of the list of descriptors given to testers.        When using dynamic study methods (methods which consist in measuring the sensations perceived over time while tasting a product; with time being taken into account in order to measure the dynamic behavior of the product and reveal how the sensations perceived vary while tasting is taking place), the expected results are falsified since with such methods the products are characterized not only by the intensities of the descriptors, but also and above all by the timing with which said descriptors appear. Thus, a tester wasting time in consulting the list to find the descriptor that has just been perceived, while continuing to perceive other descriptors, runs a critical risk of reversing the order in which said descriptors appear, and the marking is thus falsified.        